Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

I Donít![Canada-'automatically married by the state, against their will']
Slate ^ | 24 May 2012 | Lili Boisvert

Posted on 05/29/2012 7:43:21 AM PDT by Theoria

How a bizarre legal case involving a mysterious billionaire could force 1.2 million Canadians to be married, against their will.

Somewhere in North America, there is a place where little girls don’t give the slightest thought to what kind of wedding dress they’ll wear one day. A place where young men have never heard the expression: “why buy the cow when you can have the milk for free?”—because the milk is always free. A place where no one asks an unmarried couple expecting a baby if they’re getting hitched.

This place is the province of Quebec. The French language spoken here is no guarantee for romance. Couples are practical, and lovers treasure their individuality. Quebec has become one of the least marrying places in the world, thanks to the institution known as “de facto spouses,” But now, thanks to a bizarre legal case entangling a Quebec billionaire and his de facto spouse ,  the freedom to un-marry is under threat. More than 1 million Quebecois in this kind of relationship may soon be automatically married by the state, against their will.

De facto spouses are defined by Quebec’s law as two people who have been living together for a year or more without being married and who check the “couple” box on their income tax statement form. Quebec’s lawmakers have deliberately chosen not to give de facto couples the same rights and responsibilities that married couples have under the Law of Quebec, to preserve the freedom of choice.

(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...


TOPICS: Canada; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: canada; defactospouses; marriage; quebec
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last
When you choose to go down the rabbit hole, ya never know where it will lead.
1 posted on 05/29/2012 7:43:28 AM PDT by Theoria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Theoria

We already have “common law” wife in the US.


2 posted on 05/29/2012 7:49:29 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

Doesn’t the U.S. have “common law marriage” that is similar? By common law... I thought if a couple lived together for a period of time, they were seen as “married” in the eyes of the State.


3 posted on 05/29/2012 7:50:05 AM PDT by momtothree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

“When you choose to go down the rabbit hole, ya never know where it will lead.”

True, but you know what will be all over the floor.

;-(


4 posted on 05/29/2012 7:50:05 AM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is necessary to examine principles."...the public interest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

Sorry, CL! I asked the question and we must have posted a second or two apart.


5 posted on 05/29/2012 7:51:11 AM PDT by momtothree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: momtothree

Some states do. But, ya know that in advance, not after.


6 posted on 05/29/2012 7:53:24 AM PDT by Theoria (Rush Limbaugh: Ron Paul sounds like an Islamic terrorist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: momtothree

I saw it as a “great minds think alike” sort of thing. ;-)


7 posted on 05/29/2012 8:02:59 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf; momtothree

Not in Connecticut, I don’t know about other states.


8 posted on 05/29/2012 8:03:19 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (I like Obamacare because Granny signed the will and I need the cash)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods; cuban leaf; momtothree

Not in Delaware either - although now they do perform same sex “civil unions.”


9 posted on 05/29/2012 8:09:04 AM PDT by Gabz (Democrats for Voldemort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods

Looks like some states and not others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage_in_the_United_States


10 posted on 05/29/2012 8:09:52 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

Not in every state.


11 posted on 05/29/2012 8:11:47 AM PDT by kalee (The offenses we give, we write in the dust; Those we take, we engrave in marble. J Huett 1658)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kalee

—Not in every state.—

Well, to be fair, my comment was like saying “it is legal to purchase alcohol in the US”, even thought I, personally, live in a dry county.

;-)


12 posted on 05/29/2012 8:15:06 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: momtothree

“common law marriage” was outlawed by statute in virtually every (if not every) US jurisdiction in the early to mid 20th century. The theory was that CLM created more problems than it solved. In particular, problems of bigamy, divorce, inheritance, probate, custody of children, rape (remember that in some jurisdictions it was, until recently, legally impossible for a husband to rape his wife), and evidence (marital privilege in some places permits spouses to exclude each other’s testimony). Where the state has an efficient licensing system, the theory goes, we don’t need to spend a lot of effort to determine whether people are married or not.


13 posted on 05/29/2012 8:16:49 AM PDT by FateAmenableToChange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

My non-lawyer’s understanding of common law marriage in TX:

It exists precisely to protect the woman, and any children, from the Eric/Lola scenario. If a couple cohabits, and holds themselves out to the public to be married, then they are married in the sight of the law.

I think the “holds themselves out to the public” standard is higher than the average “shacked up briefly and a child resulted”.


14 posted on 05/29/2012 8:20:06 AM PDT by RedElement
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: “Defacto married” women were not eligible for alimony. A Canadian court has decreed that your unmarried “defacto” wife may be awarded alimony.


15 posted on 05/29/2012 8:24:15 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (If I can't be persuasive, I at least hope to be fun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

Thank you for clearing that up.


16 posted on 05/29/2012 8:39:25 AM PDT by Tax-chick (I love you for your perspicacity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Theoria
De facto spouses are defined by Quebec’s law as two people who have been living together for a year or more without being married and who check the “couple” box on their income tax statement form.

They can't have it both ways. They must either choose to be a couple or not to be a couple.

17 posted on 05/29/2012 9:37:47 AM PDT by JimRed (Excising a cancer before it kills us waters the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
We already have “common law” wife in the US.

Only in states that have not changed the common law we inherited from England at the time of Independence.

Actually, common law marriage was a wise institution that legally recognized the fact that marriage is neither a state nor a religious institution, but a natural institution in human society, that stable cohabitation by a man and a woman was the key feature of that institution and that the state (or Crown) had an interest in keeping such relationships stable (mostly for the sake of any children engendered). It is precisely the arrogation to the state of the purported authority to redefine non-state social institutions that is the most odious feature of the drive for "same-sex marriage". It's actually to see Quebec catching up with the Anglosphere in creating an analogue of common law marriage.

18 posted on 05/29/2012 10:03:11 AM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

Does not sound too different at all from the Common Law Marriage we have here in Pennsylvania and in many of the other 13 original colonies.


19 posted on 05/29/2012 10:09:15 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FateAmenableToChange

Common law marriage is recognized in Colorado. It is often adjudicated “after the fact” when one of the couple wants a divorce or child custody or some other dispute occurs. The key is they held themselves out in public as a married couple.


20 posted on 05/29/2012 10:51:40 AM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson